Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 25/11/2018 12:26

I know it was junk Lucky hence my fraud comment. Just didn’t want a long debate here with the others fraudsters joining in.

Nice that it’s published though as why else would you want a view published other than to support a position.

Just a rehash of the same junk methods when it was 60-70p and they shorted it then. It then took off. Same about to happpen imo.

The web is great and they waste time chasing red herrings:-).

[luckyorange] 25/11/2018 12:11

Music to AECOMs ears serratia .

[serratia] 25/11/2018 12:03

Some thoughts on why Graphene is cost effective in construction-

First high strength concrete is more expensive. I've seen various figures quoted as high as 4.6* more expensive than lower strength material. Another paper said adding 3.1* the cost gave 4.7* the load capacity so a cost benefit.
Next up trucking costs, these seem to be about 20% of the basic concrete cost so if you use double strength material and hence need half as much you save on delivery costs.
Pouring costs are 8-10% of the concrete cost so halve the pouring costs.
Steel reinforcement is as someone said expensive. A paper states using high strength concrete cut the steel use/cost by 60%.
Labour costs, again reduced as only half the material used. Construction time is also significantly reduced.

All the above shows why Graphene can significantly reduce building costs by creating higher strength concrete.

There are other technical benefits for example in dam building a special concrete mix is used for the water facing part of the dam wall to prevent water ingress/damage to the concrete. Graphene will make the concrete water resistant.
All in all there is no need to sell Graphene cheaply for the concrete construction industry.
On another point the breakdown costs of a 50 storey building were quoted in one paper as % - Footings 5, Core 38, Floors 40, Columns 10, edge beams 7 add to that the other polymers in kitting out the building which can be Graphene enhanced and hence lighter which again leads to a reduction in concrete use. The overall savings will be significant allowing Graphene to be priced to take part of the value chain.

[1teepee] 25/11/2018 11:48

So please short as much as you can possibly short, shorters. You lose and lth win;)

[1teepee] 25/11/2018 11:47

I would have thought shorting Vrs would be good for those building a position. As it would enable buying at a lower price and when it goes up on news, orders etc then the shorters get closed out and the price rockets even more. Am I wrong?

[woodpeckers] 25/11/2018 11:21

Neill said first week of December I think 9d.

[9degrees] 25/11/2018 10:50

interims due this week ?

[a_game] 25/11/2018 10:28

Absolutely superg. Chooo chooo, lets see what this week brings ;)

[hattie1] 25/11/2018 10:23

My guess is its already here and bieng commissioned for use club ..

[club sandwich] 25/11/2018 10:13

If the new machines were due to arrive in December (tho we weren't told *when* in December), and delivery has been brought forward, could they arrive this week? And will we be told if they do? Could be an interesting week...

[superg1] 25/11/2018 09:07

Don’t listen do they. All available via the web. Interesting stuff 👍

[loglorry1] 25/11/2018 08:53

What has Lucien written that is wrong? He's shown that NRs tweets about supporting Versarien for years (copied below) are highly misleading at best with reference to the accounts.

NR despite claiming otherwise has only invested £4,000 into VRS for his shares.

"As most entrepreneurs , I put everything I had into the business, bootstrapped it through the first few years, went unpaid for a long time , and came close to losing my house."

"Umm Who do you think paid for the company from Dec 2010 when the company was formed to Nov 2011 when the first investment came in? I thought it was because you always lost the argument lol"

-------
Lucien at risk of fraud there imo, silly boy.

[diversification] 25/11/2018 08:51

What a desperate, bitter and jealous article. Lucian Miers Obviously doesn’t like a success story and others making a profit.

The majority owner of bet365 pays herself over £250m a year. Is this also a bad business due her families respective initial investment.

Delving into the ownership of Shareprophets Ltd makes very interesting reading. What a load of BS.

[loglorry1] 25/11/2018 08:45

@500kv Good questions. There is a pending ISO standard on Graphene definitions. We have already some early ISO definitions in this to define some of the terms. I'll post the link later but it seems right now they will set a cut off of 10 layers.

What matters more than these technical definitions, from a commercial standpoint in my opinion is

* Does it work in the applications it is intended for.

* Can it be produced in enough volume.

* Can it be produced at a price which is both competitive with other producers and is low enough for customers to justify putting into their products.

Addressing these points in turn. VRS collaborations go back 3 years and there have been no real updates which prove Nanene works. I'm talking about the sort of data Talga have published about concrete or FGR on their work in mining bucket liners. I'm talking about customer adoption and sales like XGS and NanoXplore. There's an academic paper published which studied the effect of Nanene in polymers with some positive effects. I'm pretty sure Nanene will have positive effects outside the lab but I see no evidence that it's any better than many competing products. Further it looks like aspect ratio is very important in some applications and it is not clear that Nanene with a lateral size range of between 0.1 and 10um and no average given) will be as good as other solutions with larger average lateral sizes. Further the 45m2 specific surface area of Nanene seems very low compared to solutions like xGNP from XGS who have a SSA up to 750m2. It's telling that the recent aircraft part interest was for Graphene HP not Nanene. The former has a larger lateral size but more layers (under ISO its probably not Graphene but that depends on how much has to be below 10 layers which hasn't been defined HP is 73% under 10 layers)

On volume. Currently VRS can produce about 365kg/year. New machines currently being commissioned should bring this to 3000kg/yr. Competing companies are producing around the 100-500 ton level with NanoXplore ramping up to 10,0000 tons. Companies like Sixth Elements are supplying Graphene for Huawei, a massive mobile phone company, and so have very high production capacity. XGS supplying Ford have hundred ton capacity.

On pricing you are correct VRS keep pricing a closely guarded secret. Bulls on this board, and Justin Waite in his podcast (paid PR) put it at between $35,000 and $100,000 per Kg. In my view this is ludicrous. The competition pricing is between $50 and $200/kg. NanoXplore predict prices to fall to $30/kg. VRS have never to my knowledge given a production cost. The vrs patent describe that the yeilds of Graphene from graphite as being quite low around 20% from memory but graphite is relatively cheap about $2/kg.

My view is that there are almist no applications that can commercially support prices at $100k/kg. Plastics cost around $2/kg and so you can see adding 1% Nanene would be ridiculous at this price. Worse for concrete even at lower concentrations.

From an investment perspective most competing companies have a market cap around £30m Vs VRS at £180m. This is a very important point. I think many unsophisticated investors have been seduced by the potential of Graphene and bought into that story with no regard to the valuation of the companies they are buying in the space. What I call the Twitter multiple*, around 8x, is largely due to the strong level if promotion that VRS has had particularly from the CEO.

* Defines as the number of times the VRS market cap is higher than the average of a basket of its peers.

Edit: forgot to add VRS have one granted patent for their method of Graphene production and a further failed one. Many other firms have a patented process. The patent VRS holds is for a mechanical exfoliation technique. VRS to my knowledge have never explained why this gives them a significant commercial or technical advantage. NR has played down the importance of patent protection repeatedly on Twitter.

[superg1] 25/11/2018 08:44

Lucky

He is filtered and the whole point is not to have stuff regurgitated on here. Lucien at risk of fraud there imo, silly boy.

[superg1] 25/11/2018 08:43

500kv

There are various types of graphene.

On the GNP side it’s quite simple. Any graphite will increase electrical and thermal performance in composites that are poor conductors.

For strength gains the lower the number of layers the better, but then there are other factors needed too like low defect ratios.

Quite simply multi-layer have weak bonds between layers and it’s that factor which causes weakness in composites. For strength Nanene performs better than VRS HP. The reason is the pecentage of fewer layer is higher in Nanene.

Over 10 layer is the drop off a cliff point re performance. It’s the scientists that have discovered that not posters here. Posters here have read many science papers on the topic.

On costs, collaborations include a cost matrix before they go shead (explained at the AGM). So there is no nasty surprise to come for those working with VRS. It’s all known at the start.

Simple really company X says we need to do this product at X cost and want this gain.
So it depends on loadings and what the product is, along with desired outcomes.

As in a recent example we posted. Changing materials used 75% installation time with less staff and plant equipment.

So the cost matrix isn’t all about end product costs but also the costs to get to that point.

EG We have yet to learn what the improved process is for rubber. We all know gains can be made but they are finding it can improve and lower the cost of production methods.

[chillpill] 25/11/2018 08:41

You have to remember Lucian Miers first shorted the stock back when the price was in the 60's.

It's probably doing himself a favour there is no stock available to short anymore!

[grabster] 25/11/2018 06:52

".. it is not clear to me what the definition of graphene is .." (500kv)

Is the September 2017 ISO terminology standard of use there?
ISO/TS 80004-13:2017 - Nanotechnologies -- Vocabulary -- Part 13 ...

I understand your other queries being ones to which the answers would make this an easier investment if fully answered. But if you already hold shares, you have presumably, like the rest of us, taken a judgment without those answers all being there - knowing that if they were there, and were all acceptably good, the share price would be several times dearer to buy.

EDIT: You previously asked what advantage Versarien holds over OCSIAI. (Post 49925). Others can answer that better than I can, (and someone already did) but as a layman their own declared focus on "single wall carbon nanotubes" sounds far FAR narrower than Versarien's range of activity.

[1teepee] 25/11/2018 03:35

Do you have nothing better to do?

[20pc] 25/11/2018 00:34

You are right Shavian. He is definitely not the Messiah, but (all together now) WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS..

[shavian] 24/11/2018 23:39

CDub, like most of us I have loglorry filtered. Is he now saying he is like the Messiah? Now I know he’s gone potty. He’s not the Messiah (all together now):

HE’S A VERY NAUGHTY BOY!

[500kv] 24/11/2018 23:25

I am a shareholder in VRS, and have spent many years in R&D in various multinational companies for whom I filed a plurality of patents, particularly in polymer chemistry. I am convinced that graphene will have a major role in product development in the coming years. However, it is not clear to me what the definition of graphene is, which producers actually produce a 'graphene' or the like in volumes that are sufficient for an acceptable price to performance ratio (depending on the targeted application), and at what costs the various manufacturers have.
As far as I am aware, VRS has never published prices for their product(s),nor for their projected production capacities, nor for their sustainable advantage over their competitors.
Consequently, I regard Loglorry's comments as not necessarily overtly negative, but rather a reminder to shareholders that there does exist competition out there.
I know not the patent advantage of VRS over their competitors.
Accordingly, before investing more in VRS I await significant information on future performance - royalties, production capacities, partnerships, projected sales and the various analyses of their product quality.